Same-sex marriage ban won't be on November ballot

Indiana Senate Minority Leader Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, addresses the Freedom Indiana gathering on the fourth floor of the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014, after the Indiana Senate did not amend HJR-3 to add back in the second sentence banning civil unions. Even if the Senate passes HJR-3 on third reading on Monday, not having the sentence will prohibit it from going before voters in November.(Photo: Charlie Nye/The Star)Buy Photo

A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Indiana won't go to voters in November — and may never.

A decision Thursday by the Indiana Senate not to restore the original language of the proposed constitutional amendment means that even if it passes, as expected, during a final vote Monday, it would have to pass a future legislature and couldn't go before voters until at least 2016.

But with public attitudes quickly shifting away from such bans, supporters likely will have a harder time winning over another legislature. And the U.S. Supreme Court may make the issue moot before then.

"It's a big victory for us," said Megan Robertson, campaign director of Freedom Indiana, a coalition of amendment opponents who jubilantly celebrated at the Statehouse. "It's kind of a resounding win because they couldn't even bring (the original language) up for a vote. We'd like to see it beat outright, but this is a big deal."

Some lawmakers wanted to restore a provision banning civil unions. But no such proposal was brought forward for a vote.

"The chances of this making it are getting slimmer and slimmer," said Robert Dion, a political science professor at the University of Evansville. "The yearslong push just took a big body blow. The Senate was the place to make the last stand — and it didn't even happen."

The House previously removed the civil union ban to gain enough Republican support to pass the amendment, which now simply bans same-sex marriage.

Freedom Indiana members rally at Indiana Statehouse after HJR-3 is not amended on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014. Charlie Nye/The Star.

Supporters were disappointed at the outcome but vowed to continue fighting for the measure, known as House Joint Resolution 3.

"We view this as a delay, not a defeat," said Eric Miller, founder and executive director of Advance America, a conservative advocacy group pushing the amendment. "We're still going to work to pass a constitutional amendment to protect marriage between a man and a woman."

The Senate's decision came after intense lobbying from those on both sides of the issue. As senators made their way into the chamber, competing chants from a couple of hundred sign-waving supporters and opponents filled the hallways.

The months of lobbying and Thursday's boisterous atmosphere stood in stark contrast to the dead silence on the Senate floor that followed a request for proposed changes. Several senators had filed potential alterations, but none was offered for a vote after it became clear at a private GOP caucus that the changes lacked the votes to pass.

"At first, I almost missed it because I was so excited to hear what they were saying," said Angie Suggs, an amendment opponent celebrating afterward with the crowd. "Once they said they weren't going to amend it, I thought I was stuck in time. I thought, 'Did I really hear that?'"

For Suggs, the issue is a personal one. She and her lesbian partner plan to get married in March in Iowa. "So this really hit home for us. We want a life together. We just want protection for our rights."

The General Assembly first approved the same-sex marriage ban — with a second sentence that also barred civil unions — in 2011. Supporters, including Gov. Mike Pence, wanted lawmakers to approve that version for the required second time so that it could go to voters for a final vote during the November general election.

Pence has said he wanted it passed this year rather than in 2016. That's when, presumably, he would be running for re-election.

What happened Thursday could create problems for supporters and Pence.

"You can't help but read this as a defeat for (the governor) this year," said Joseph Losco, a political science professor at Ball State University. "Each year we see a tick up of support for same-sex marriage and against the amendment."

But Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said, "This is a legislative issue. It's not on the governor's agenda. It's not a win or a loss for him."

Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he expects the amendment to come back for consideration in 2015 or 2016 if it passes the Senate on Monday, setting up the possibility of a voter referendum in 2016.

"It's (now) a straightforward discussion on whether traditional marriage should be retained or if same-sex marriage is the same," he said, "and I hope that will be a decision that Hoosiers will get a chance to vote on."

Long, who voted for the ban in 2011, said he no longer supported the second sentence, adding it was a distraction and unnecessary.

"I'm convinced that it really doesn't make any difference in the end," he said. "The U.S. Supreme Court is going to make a decision on whether or not it's either a state-by-state determination or whether the 14th amendment will rule and say that all marriage is the same."

Supporters aren't going to wait around for that.

Conservative advocacy groups say they plan to make the voting records of lawmakers an issue in upcoming elections.

"We will be back next year, pushing to take this issue to the people of Indiana," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.

Yet Freedom Indiana's Robertson, who has run GOP election campaigns, doesn't think those efforts are wise.

"If I was a legislator, I probably wouldn't want this to come up again," she said. "If I were someone who was going to be on the ballot in 2016, as a Republican, I wouldn't want this on the ballot with me."

Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana:

"It is a shame that Senator (David) Long chose to compound the mistake the House made disenfranchising one million Hoosier voters by leaving the future of marriage in the hands of judicial activists rather than the voters of Indiana."

Eric Miller, founder and executive director of Advance America:

"I still believe the vast majority of people in Indiana still support marriage between a man and a woman. I think voters will be looking this fall at where the candidates stand on protecting marriage between a man and a woman."

Robert Dion, a political science professor at the University of Evansville:

"The Republicans have an iron grip on the General Assembly right now, and they weren't able to achieve their long-standing goal of putting this in the state constitution. There may be some who say there will be retribution at the polls in November, but I don't see any evidence there is going to be any payback."

Rev. Robert Shaw, retired minister of Christian Church (Disciplines of Christ), Indianapolis:

"The bottom line is this is a temporary and partial victory, but it's still huge. It's really huge. I'm just glad somebody else's tax money and not Hoosier tax money, will be going to fighting this in court over the next two years. I cannot believe that it's even going to be open for debate by two more years. It's going to be decided in the courts and it's going to be done."

Annette Gross, of Carmel, co-president of the Indianapolis chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and mother of a 35-year-old son who is gay:

"I've been involved with this (issue) since 2007. I've testified in the past. We never had a coalition like this before. We have people from other organizations helping us, national organizations, big businesses. I don't know how many thousands of phone calls, letters, postcards we've sent. All that really helps."